Heard the petition filed by the petitioner,  one  Jahanara Begum u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The fact narrated in the complaint petition is that the husband of the complainant (since deceased) had an insurance policy in the HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. vide Certificate No.2950 2016 3612 8700 000  which covers Credit Shield insurance , Accidental death and Permanent/partial   disability. It is submitted that  husband of the complainant died in a road accident on 13/1/2020 and she had 2 minor children. It is further submitted that complainant being  a legal heir  is entitled to get 50% of the accidental death benefit for above noted insurance policy. According to the complainant her husband on 5.2.2019 made his father as a nominee without having knowledge that one day his     wife  and his minor  children had suffer from his decision. The complainant approached the authority (opp.party No.1) who assured her that she will be entitled for the  above noted  claim along with  her father-in-law . Bur in course of time opp.party No.1 credited the entire claim amount to her father-in-law’s account. When the complainant raised objection that op.party No. 1 stated that her father-in-law is entitled to above  noted insurance claim and refused to give the share claim amount to the complainant. In the instant petition the complainant referred case laws,

              Khusboo Gupta Vs The Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors and Smti Sarbati Devi & anr vs Smti Usha Devi.

             Our due consideration over the above  law the proposition of law is honoured and agreed , but it appears that this case law  is not applicable  to the present context . This has been done under writ  jurisdiction where the Hon’ble  court has directed the insurance company referring section 39 of the Insurance Act as well as including  law of succession  etc. The case law cited does not directly involved in Consumer Law  and policy.

     Our consideration over the matter is that the insurance company admittedly disposed of, the claim as stated by the complainant to the nominee ignoring the right of the complainant rightly or wrongly. The service for the complainant  and the face of the record does not reveal anything  about the deficiency in service, for the reason of releasing the entire amount to the nominee of the policy holder. It is  not a case of any unfair trade practice and there is no prima facie materials on record to hold a view that the service provided by the opp.party towards the complainant or nominee of the policy holder was deficient  in  service  .

          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the matter of dispute may have ingredient for claim under any law other than a consumer law. The record does not disclose  a case under sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019. As such , petition is rejected. Case is dismissed.